Thomas B. Fowler

The authors (F&K) proceed to outline, with dogged even-handedness and in a somewhat plodding and repetitive manner, four schools of thought about the origins of life. Here is one non-scientist’s impression of their attempt.

According to F&K, the evidence (geology, fossils, genetics, physiology, astrophysics) points overwhelmingly to an apparently old earth & evolution by common descent. But the evidence is somewhat more tentative when it comes to demonstrating gradual evolution by natural selection of beneficial genetic mutations (called “Neo-Darwinism” in this work, what I would have called the Standard Darwinian Synthesis). Better explanations are needed to explain how beneficial genetic information and structural novelty is introduced into the system to give rise to new genera or families (“macro-evolution”) as opposed to adaptations within species or genera (“micro-evolution”). In their assessment, “Neo-Darwinism” is by many measures a superior scientific explanation of the evidence, notwithstanding significant caveats.

“Meta-Darwinism” describes alternative approaches to explaining evolutionary mechanisms. These range from punctuated equilibrium (same Darwinian mechanism, different conditions and rates) to supplementary and even alternative explanations to natural selection. All of these explanations invoke only natural causes and mechanisms. F&K judge that “Meta-Darwinian” explanations hold intriguing possibilities, but need far more evidence and testing to rival the explanatory power of “Neo-Darwinism”.

Intelligent Design, while generally not disputing the general scientific interpretation of the evidence, seeks to show that purely “naturalistic” mechanisms cannot have given rise to key biological novelties. This is done through an examination of the probabilities of natural selection interacting with beneficial genetic mutations, and testing which biological novelties could not have arisen through purely naturalistic mechanisms (“irreducible complexity”). F&K think that ID’s interpretation of probabilities overstates its case, and question exactly how we are to know when we actually find an example of irreducible complexity.

To this reviewer, it is unclear to me how ID can even be considered a comparable theory of origins. Its approach can be wedded to many theories (all the way from creationism to a modified view of Darwinism). ID works by seeking to exclude some phenomena from scientific investigation rather than proposing exactly how those phenomena arose. On that count Creationism is more scientific. So its inclusion as one competing school of origins in this book is somewhat anomalous.

Young earth Creationism (F&K dismiss old earth creationists as not really disputing the available evidence) challenges accepted interpretations of the evidence to posit a young universe spontaneously created thousands, not billions, of years ago. While good at finding some holes in evolutionary theory, it seems that F&K think that this school struggles to satisfactorily explain the evidence.

On a scientific level, the book seems to be a good guide which tries to be even-handed and evaluates pros and cons in each school. I am not scientifically trained, so it is beyond me to fully assess how accurate is their representation of the science. One review of this book (http://www.amazon.com/review/R39AEOKM8TYQ02/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm) has found some errors of fact.

A concluding “Policy & Outlook” section is somewhat shallower, but again seeks the same even-handedness. F&K advocate that alternatives to Neo-Darwinism be taught in schools because it is a good exercise in thinking critically about science. In no way do they favour a ban on the teaching of Neo-Darwinism, or even equal time being given to alternatives.

At the end F&K concede that no resolution will be possible without decoupling the philosophical/theological issues from the scientific issues. One has to question if this can really be done.

My main problem with F&K’s overview of the debate is that they don’t really come to terms with the theological/philosophical issues. Perhaps it is right that a purely scientific approach be taken. Yet the authors need to develop a philosophy of science, because this seems one of the key issues at stake: can science accommodate non-naturalistic explanations? Do naturalistic explanations exclude divine activity? Or vice versa? What is a scientific model for explaining the past?

Additionally, is it right that scientific theories be driven by non-scientific frameworks? While creationists can make scientific statements (which should be tested), can creationism be properly be called “scientific”. It does not proceed from observations about the world that give rise to testable hypotheses. Rather, it seeks to fit the natural world into a pre-ordained dogmatic framework. While it is true that Darwinism can also be dogmatic, it arose and survives as a product of the scientific method.

The authors make the distinction between naturalistic methodology (ie. scientific method deals with the natural, not supernatural) and a naturalistic world view (the only valid explanations are based on scientific method), and rightly criticise many proponents of evolution for advocating philosophical naturalism as the only corollary of biological evolution. Yet, lacking a explicit philosophy of science, F&K are unable to rightly criticise the reductionism of philosophical naturalists (there is nothing that cannot be scientifically tested, and all things have only a naturalistic explanation) and the equally erroneous premise of creationists and IDers (to preserve divine activity in creation, a Christian account of natural origins must have some aspects that cannot be described scientifically).

Ultimately this book shows the limits of understanding, let alone resolving, these conflicting views without a recourse to underlying philosophy and theology. Therefore it continually annoyed me that the authors dismiss “theistic evolution” (an oxymoron), claiming that it (as well as old earth or progressive creationism) add nothing to the science of the debate. However a great many Christian scientists do operate happily in some form of evolutionary framework. I came away from this book with an unpleasant impression that there is little room between the scientific if godless evolutionists (Neo- and Meta-) and the sub-scientific but well-meaning proponents of Christian alternatives. Yet there is, and only a proper examination of the underlying non-scientific issues, as well as the science, can hope to move forward to any solution.

As a reviewer, as a Christian, as someone who holds that an evangelical reading of scripture does not mandate a particular scientific view on natural origins, I find that the following two propositions, beyond the scope of this book, help clarify the issues.

1. All aspects of physical and natural reality are amenable to both scientific and theological/moral explanation. As I read scripture, I see a God who works in and through the natural order, created through and for Jesus Christ. Therefore, everything I see in nature is evidence of an intelligent, a divine, design. This is not demonstrated by a new version of the “God of the gaps”, but grasped through faith in Christ. God is therefore free to intervene miraculously (contra to natural laws), but this is no more his activity than the sun rising and setting every day. And, on the other hand, while I do not find it disturbing that many human behaviours have an evolutionary explanation, that does not mean explain away any need for moral consideration. After all, who made behavioural scientists experts in morality and ethics?

2. The Bible does not mandate a particular theory of origins. Creationism would have no raison d’être were it not for its view that Genesis 1 (and, subsidiary to it, chapters 2-11) have to be interpreted in a particular, more literal way. Questions of scriptural interpretation are rarely voiced among churches (their natural habitat) where creationism is assumed. Yet they need to be. The concerns of those chapters are with issues contemporary with their ancient audiences, not modern science. Their style cannot support the scientific questions asked of them. In fact, there are elements that contradict a scientific understanding. When the poetic and narrative power of those chapters of the Bible come to the fore, and are loosened from the polemical baggage that has been imposed upon them, then they speak with a freshness and power that is liberating. They give rise to a robust and even militant theology of creation that can truly challenge the false gods of our society.… (mere)

This is a book that is difficult to rate, because it varies so in quality. Most of it is very good, and I think that I have learned a lot from reading it. With the reservations that follow, I would recommend it to anyone with a serious interest in the evolution controversies, and more generally to people interested in scientific issues associated with evolution. The authors have included a bibliography organized by subject as an aid to those wanting to read further. It is perhaps unfortunate that one tends to be briefer in praise than in criticism, perhaps because in the former case the work speaks for itself. Please do not let the length of my criticisms overwhelm my genuine praise for the work.

The authors bravely set out to examine the scientific arguments, and those only, of four camps in the evolution disputes: Neo-Darwinists, the overwhelming majority of naturalistic scientists; creationists, here meaning only Young Earth Creationists (YEC); Intelligent Design; and Meta-Darwinists, meaning naturalistic scientists who think that natural selection may be over-rated as the engine of evolution. It may seem redundant to speak of naturalistic scientists, but the subject calls for clarity and precision. For the most part, they have done a creditable job at this difficult task, which makes it a very worthwhile read. Theistic evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists (OEC) are excluded on the grounds that they do not propose different scientific methods, but believe in non-naturalistic mechanisms supplementing the scientific processes.

It is easier for me to critique the chapter on Intelligent Design (ID), as it is less technical than the others. The authors do not deal with two criticisms that I have read of Dembski's filter; that is that necessity, chance, and design do not always function discretely in the real world. Where would one place natural selection (which IDers often accept to a degree) on the filter given that it functions through the interaction of chance and necessity? Neo-Darwinism is not the only naturalistic system that the authors need to consider; Meta-Darwinism offers mechanisms that avoid requiring a function to be built stepwise. One must keep in mind that according to naturalistic explanations, most individuals don't reproduce and most experiments fail. To take the authors' example, if organisms developed a light-sensitive patch, some might swim toward the light, some might swim away from it, and some might do a little dance. The organisms whose reaction was most useful would produce more of the next generation. The authors don't address the question of precisely what we have said if we say something is designed, although they note the problem of presenting positive evidence. The IDers have argued that it is possible for the non-naturalistic to be considered in science, but we are left wondering how they propose to do this.

The penultimate chapter: "Public Policy Implications of the Evolution Controversy" is atrocious, and in many ways undercuts the careful work of the rest of the book. The discussion is generally shallow, and often involves broad, unsupported generalizations about large groups of people, which are often elsewhere contradicted. Theistic evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists may not have unique scientific arguments, but they are essential to make sense of evolution theory as a public phenomenon and should have been included more consistently here.

I will discuss only the section on education. The authors speak very vaguely about education without considering that what is appropriate may depend upon the level and time spend on the class. If high school students are going to spend a total of ninety minutes on evolution, or any other topic, there is no time to consider more than the most generally agreed-upon highlights. As an analogy, when I attend a several hour course on life-after-death at a friend's church, the teacher explained the basic beliefs; he did not review abstruse theological points, the beliefs of other sects, or general institutional problems of the church. Not everything that is useful or broadening can be taught in twelve years of basic education. Among the things that I did NOT learn in school are how to write a check; how to balance a bank account; how to do laundry; and, most germane in this case, non-Euclidean geometry. Given that most Americans don't believe in naturalistic evolution, the alternatives are widely available in society at large. Indeed, according to histories of the subject, the main reason that evolution is taught in school at all in many places is that Sputnik frightened the Federal government into emphasizing science, which the authors agree is very important in our society, and Neo-Darwinism is the most commonly held position by scientists, as the authors also admit. In addition, the authors do not consider what exactly would be taught as an alternative. On a scientific level, they credit Intelligent Design with few scientific achievements thus far; Creationist work deals more with astronomy and geology than evolution per se. In his book Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer lists at the end the variety of religious beliefs towards the formation of the universe, and variety of just Christian attitudes towards evolution. Young Earth Creationists may cheer on Intelligent Designers in attacking naturalistic evolution, but I suspect that if some sort of non-naturalistic theories were introduced, they would be at odds, not to mention what non-Christians would have to say. As students spend more time on a subject, especially as it becomes their profession, it becomes more appropriate and necessary for them study exceptions, fringe ideas, and criticisms. They could serve as a helpful stimulus to clarifying and understanding one's own views, at very least.

Moreover, the authors make the sweeping, and to my mind offensive, generalization that people who want to specify what type of evolution children learn, in this context meaning naturalistic science, take an anything-goes attitude towards ethics and morality. (p.335) Have the authors any data to back up this statement? I question the validity of this point of view, even if we were talking only about atheists like Richard Dawkins, but I find it unacceptable that the authors are ignoring the existence of theistic believers. Does this include that theistic evolutionist Pope John Paul II? How about two well-known Christian scientists Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway Morris? Are the authors implying that "liberal Christian" is an oxymoron? The authors have strayed from their intention of rising above insults and ad hominem attacks.

This book, in short, would be a lot better for being shorter.… (mere)